bg3_test_script

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key side effect (writes to <mod>/docs/test-scripts/) and that the script is returned, which is meaningful. It says nothing about overwriting existing scripts, required preconditions, or permissions, so the disclosure is partial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and artifact, then the destination. No filler, though the parenthetical makes it slightly dense rather than crisp.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The existence of an output schema excuses explaining the return value, but with 4 undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description is too thin for the complexity. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct call from this text alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, with only 'layer' required. The phrase 'per level and case' hints at the level parameter, but there is no explanation of what 'layer' means, why a separate 'layers' array exists, or what class_name does, so the description fails to compensate for the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (write) and resource (human test script), and even defines the artifact as a step-by-step reading script per level and case, plus the destination path. It does not name or distinguish itself from near siblings such as bg3_test_plan or bg3_test_stage, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. In a sibling set packed with test tools (bg3_test_plan, bg3_test_stage, bg3_test_run, bg3_test_verify), an agent gets no signal about where this fits in the workflow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.